Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 08:18, 3 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Silex Flash CMS

Silex Flash CMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reference review:

• Official site: Reliable, Not independent of the subject.
• Sourceforge: Reliable, Trivial.
• GNU- Reliable, Trivial.

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Weak deleteWeak keep. Evidence by Pohta ce-am pohtit looks like enough for notability now. I still would like the article to be cleaned up to avoid reading so much like advertisement, but the SourceForge and O'Reilly coverage is independent. Looks too much like a vanity article. But a 3rd party source or two could convince me otherwise. LotLE×talk 01:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. It was FOSS of the month in July on SourceForge. It has a blurb in this O'Reilly blog. It's also included in this round-up but it's not a critical review. Also covered here, which a soft of company blog. Pcap ping 01:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I was also able to find two short good/bad commentaries here and here, another non-critical round-up here, but they are all on pretty obscure sources. Pcap ping 01:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The nature of the sources used to show notability necessary depends on an article's subject matter. Mere "obscurity" should not cause sources to be discounted, if they are considered to be reliable. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC) — Werner Heisenberg (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy.

Actually the prominence of the sources matters, because we'd have every topic from a college newspaper here otherwise (like every student who had a paragraph written about him, and so forth). In this case all the sources blog-like, and with the exception of the O'Reilly one are self-published. The O'Reilly blog only reproduces the official blurb of the software, and asks readers about their opinion. Some of the other look like splogs or aggregators of product descriptions at best. Pcap ping 08:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Also the creator of the page, User:Lexoyo, appears to have a WP:COI, see link on his user page. Pcap ping 09:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep per significant coverage in the available RS, which demonstrates notability. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC) — Werner Heisenberg (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy.
  • Sockepuppet of banned user. See User talk:Werner Heisenberg. Pcap ping 08:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The sources provided by Pcap are insufficient to establish notability because they are either unreliable and/or passing mentions. I fully agree with the nominator's and Pcap's deletion rationales. Cunard (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil 06:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.